Ibitsu and Beamer have been engaging in an interesting discussion about silence. These entries can be read here (ibitsu) and here (beamer). I was struck by a line from ibitsu where he writes ‘indeed, linguistically silence is always a very noisy matter’ as ‘the fragility of logocentrism which never lets silence be silent, silence must always be noisy.’ From my understanding the noise of linguistics is also the production of silence, and a noisy silence. To write is therefore the production of noise and the production of silence. They are two entangled processes of writing.
This is not an abstract issue, but a day-today issue. For example one only need concentrate on the (re)writing of historical narratives so history can function to produce the present. Composing historical narratives is not merely the act of providing a mirror image to the past. Instead composing historical narratives is a far more complex and political practice that may actively entail silencing the past. My presumption is historical narratives are written in order to bring linguistic noise to past historical events, but in bringing this noise they also produce silence. I mention this factor as the noise and the silence of these historical narratives can bring attention to how history works in the present.
For example, read these Caribbean historical narratives from the all-inclusive hotel chain Superclubs: Jamaica; Dominican Republic; and the Bahamas. Notice how bringing noise to the past Superclubs also silence the past. All the historical narratives write as if Caribbean history only began when Columbus discovered the ‘new world.’ The pre-Hispanic Caribbean is silenced as the white/male/European perspective is emphasised. In all these narratives the noise would suggest the destination were devoid of human inhabitants before 1492. There is no mention of how the indigenous inhabitants help to make the Spanish as much as the Spanish invented these destinations.
The historical narrative continue in this style, which attempts to silence the pre-Hispanic Caribbean, silence slavery, and silence forms of resistance to colonialism and/or imperialism. Instead the noise of the narratives aims to describe the destination in terms of the benefits the visitors have brought to them. Of course, this noise, and production of silence, is used to remove feelings of guilt and unease about visitors visiting the Caribbean. Which 0f course is beneficial to Superclubs as they are in the business of bringing consumers/visitors to their Caribbean destinations.
Yet the silence is also what haunts their historical narratives. When they create noise to produce silence the silence can emerge as counter-actualisation of noise. A noise Superclubs try to silence. The aim is not to moralise or claim an objective superiority when reading a historical narrative that silences the past through narrating the past, but instead to provide (counter) historical narratives that bring noise to the silence in the text. This noise can act to destabilise the production of silence as historical narratives silence the past.
This is not an abstract issue, but a day-today issue. For example one only need concentrate on the (re)writing of historical narratives so history can function to produce the present. Composing historical narratives is not merely the act of providing a mirror image to the past. Instead composing historical narratives is a far more complex and political practice that may actively entail silencing the past. My presumption is historical narratives are written in order to bring linguistic noise to past historical events, but in bringing this noise they also produce silence. I mention this factor as the noise and the silence of these historical narratives can bring attention to how history works in the present.
For example, read these Caribbean historical narratives from the all-inclusive hotel chain Superclubs: Jamaica; Dominican Republic; and the Bahamas. Notice how bringing noise to the past Superclubs also silence the past. All the historical narratives write as if Caribbean history only began when Columbus discovered the ‘new world.’ The pre-Hispanic Caribbean is silenced as the white/male/European perspective is emphasised. In all these narratives the noise would suggest the destination were devoid of human inhabitants before 1492. There is no mention of how the indigenous inhabitants help to make the Spanish as much as the Spanish invented these destinations.
The historical narrative continue in this style, which attempts to silence the pre-Hispanic Caribbean, silence slavery, and silence forms of resistance to colonialism and/or imperialism. Instead the noise of the narratives aims to describe the destination in terms of the benefits the visitors have brought to them. Of course, this noise, and production of silence, is used to remove feelings of guilt and unease about visitors visiting the Caribbean. Which 0f course is beneficial to Superclubs as they are in the business of bringing consumers/visitors to their Caribbean destinations.
Yet the silence is also what haunts their historical narratives. When they create noise to produce silence the silence can emerge as counter-actualisation of noise. A noise Superclubs try to silence. The aim is not to moralise or claim an objective superiority when reading a historical narrative that silences the past through narrating the past, but instead to provide (counter) historical narratives that bring noise to the silence in the text. This noise can act to destabilise the production of silence as historical narratives silence the past.
